prad never made a comment about eating meat being 'unnatural' and only pointed out why it is unwise given the well documented health consequences (that result from the physiology).
I was responding to lloydk when I talked about 'naturalness.'
So vegetarianism is a very logical course for us...But I would not agree that it is totally natural.
- lloydk
I misunderstood him. I thought he was suggesting that eating meat wasn't unnatural, but he was saying vegetarianism isn't totally natural. Either way my argument still is appropriate.
saying that everything that is, is natural may be a bit tautological.
As in, it's a redundancy? Two words that mean the same thing, so are not both needed? Possibly. However 'nature' is a single word, while 'everything that is' is not, so the redundancy is minimal. As to whether or not I interpret the word 'nature' properly (not that anyone's challenged me, but they often do when I give my opinion of the word), scientists often talk about Nature as the thing that they study, implying it's the whole of reality.
Also, if it's natural for lions to eat baby lions (or whatever animals do this, I know some do), and if it's natural for beavers to make dams...how come humans are different? Whatever a species does is natural for that species. Nature is just a name for the world we live in. Judging something as "unnatural" makes no sense to me. It's an attempt to appeal to peoples' emotions in defiance of logic.
the 'designed for argument' really should not be all that disagreeable. for instance, humans are not designed to fly.
Most definitions of 'design' need a designer. Dictionary.com has only two possible definitions that don't, and one of them depends on 'design' being a synonym for 'configure.'
But this is all semantics. If the intent of this statement
As far as the biology of eating meat, humans really aren't designed for it
is to say that the human body is not capable of eating meat independent of whether there is a designer or not, then my problem with the word 'design' is not relevant. I am just trying to make sure that it's understood that not all people believe in a designer.
However even this argument is clearly incorrect. We eat meat and we do basically fine. Now, we might be a little healthier as vegans, but we do just fine without being vegans.
prad never made a comment... - prad
Are you Gollum's long lost son? Why are you speaking of yourself in third person?
for instance, humans are not designed to fly. when they try to flap their arms while springing from a cliff, they experience consequences. similarly, when they consume animal proteins they also experience consequences (admittedly not with the same drastic abruptness).
This is a very reasonable statement. However, it is more accurate to say "humans aren't designed to be at optimum health and efficiency as meat eaters if sufficient plant food is available" rather than "humans aren't designed to eat meat" period.
eating meat is completely unnecessary for the survival of the human species now or in the past (again except for situations where plant foods are hard to come by).
This is sort of true, sort of not. Even if a civilization can get by with only plant foods, it might do better if it included meat. Such civilizations could outcompete vegetarian ones. Now if there was a huge surplus of vegetable food so there was minimal advantage to eating meat, then there would be no need.
Yes, the ability to eat meat is valuable, but that doesn't entail that we ought to eat meat. My ability to cause physical harm to others is also valuable, but that doesn't entail that I ought to go looking for fights. I've been a vegetarian for 13 yrs., and I'm gradually cutting dairy out of my diet (no eggs or milk, as of now), but I'd eat meat if necessary for my survival.
This makes sense.
Nobody is talking about getting rid of our ability to eat meat.
No, but there was a suggestion that we aren't 'designed' for it, which suggests it's altogether a bad idea for our well being, and always has been. I think this is not a very accurate portrayal of reality.
Also, I noticed in your profile that you identify yourself as a hedonistic utilitarian. It is an entailment of that view that all pleasure and pain, including that of animals, ought to be factored into utility calculations. Unless you are prepared to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures, a la Mill, I don't see how you can sanction killing animals for food.
I absolutely agree that vegetarianism is by far the more moral lifestyle. At this time I choose to not be moral in this regard. I do acknowlege this. Do I sanction killing animals for food? I don't think about it, to be honest. My energies are directed towards getting my degree and getting a decent job so I can be self supporting, and I choose not to focus on this other area in which I can better myself.
On the other hand, humans aren't made to consume rice, pasta, potatoes or bread. They can't be, because these products aren't found naturally.
More examples of the "made to" and "natural" arguments. My pet peeve...I can't take arguments like this seriously.
If we look at our closest relatives in nature, the chimpansees (both families), we can see their diet consists of fruit, nuts and meat. Our teeth have evolved to become slightly less sharp. Maybe this is because we don't have to use them as weapons anymore?
This is interesting. I still say it's natural for us to eat everything we do. If it's not natural for us to eat cereal grains, how come it's natural for chimpanzees to eat nuts?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I was responding to lloydk when I talked about 'naturalness.'
i guess i was too.
Judging something as "unnatural" makes no sense to me. It's an attempt to appeal to peoples' emotions in defiance of logic.
i don't know if you are directing this to me or not. i'm not really concerned in the idea whether something is 'unnatural' or not. my point is that there is plenty of evidence that indicates animal protein consumption really isn't a good idea for humans.
However even this argument is clearly incorrect. We eat meat and we do basically fine.
the argument is not incorrect, but it is fairly clear. considering that there are a myriad of diseases that are linked to animal protein consumption and that these diseases often are reversible when that consumption is terminated, it is reasonable to believe that it may be the human body that has a difficult time because it wasn't really designed to handle this stuff - i have already given you some of the physiological realities.
Are you Gollum's long lost son? Why are you speaking of yourself in third person?
sometimes i like to talk to myself. i do not understand the reference to gollum's long lost son though i have seen the movie and read the book.
it is more accurate to say "humans aren't designed to be at optimum health and efficiency as meat eaters if sufficient plant food is available" rather than "humans aren't designed to eat meat" period.
i'm fine with that - in fact, i like it!
Now if there was a huge surplus of vegetable food so there was minimal advantage to eating meat, then there would be no need.
well there is a huge surplus of vegetable food. unfortunately, most of it goes to feeding animals so that some people can eat meat.
in friendship,
prad
A veritable cornucopia of things veggy in this all-natural thread. Prad seems happy with his diet the way it is and is not to be tempted by things that wiggle. Bbarr seems to be headed there too. I wonder about the meat-eaters, would you accept insects in your diet if they were made palatable, cheap and could be shown to have a positive impact on land usage? What about some of the other vegetarians; cricket anyone?
Originally posted by lloydkyes i've been hearing that sort of thing for 35 years.
Prad, I've been a vegetarian (though not vegan) for >25 years. I've had several doctors tell me I should take supplements because there are a few minerals and one or two vitamins that are very hard to get through non-animal sources. Have you heard this?
when i went veg in 1972, my father (an MD) thought i was mad.
when in 90s we all went vegan, he thought i was being criminally negligent towards my son.
(my father eventually got bullied into becoming vegan by his grandson 😀 - he cheats a bit with cheese though if he can get away with it 😀)
the biggest problem that scares people is the B12 deficiency - i've already elaborated on this somewhat earlier.
there are always other deficiencies cited like protein, iron, calcium, zinc, riboflavin, Vitamin D, fat etc etc. depending on who has done the latest research on whatever. one of the interesting criteria for deciding a 'deficiency' that is sometimes used is the RDA (or whatever it is called these days). in other words, the RDA which has been established through various means and then inflated a bit because no one wants to get sued if someone decides they are sick because they followed the RDA requirements. so, for instance, a healthy male is supposed to get something like 70g of protein per day (and many get 140g because protein is supposed to be good for you), so if a vegan gets 50g then the vegan is deficient. the fact that all you really need is 30g (at least that was the amount accepted in the early 1990's by many vegan MDs) is of no consequence. this sort of thing happens quite a lot (and in many different areas actually).
the biggest problem with a vegan diet is eating tofu and pasta for breakfast, lunch and dinner. if one consumes a nice variety of foods, one shouldn't have any deficiency regardless of what the RDA says.
here's something that turns up if you do a search on vegan deficiencies:
What is a surprise is that the National Cattlemen's Beef Association has given its support to a meatless diet. In an official statement, representatives of the beef industry declared, "Like omnivorous diets, well planned vegetarian diets can meet dietary recommendations for essential nutrients,"
http://www.westonaprice.org/caustic_comments/summer2001.html
now that's amusing because that association tried to sue Lyman and Winfrey because of comments they made on her tv show 😀
if you read further, you'll see the chagrined:
The fact that cattlemen have given overt support to the vegetarian agenda is proof of the extent to which the grain cartels have been able to deceive and manipulate.
so it's all a conspiracy, no matter whose side you are on 😀
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by KneverKnighthey!! now stop that sort of thing!!!
Prad seems happy with his diet the way it is and is not to be tempted by things that wiggle.
i eat pasta once in a while!!! ðŸ˜
judging by your comments, you seem to be very determined to get people eating bugs - have you started some line of insect cuisine or something? buggy bits or filet mosquito or sirloin cicadas ...
in fiendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI have no stake in bugs, I was just curious. If world population keeps growing like it is, we might run out of farmland if things keep being done the way they are now. Its always good to have a Plan B. 🙂
hey!! now stop that sort of thing!!!
i eat pasta once in a while!!! ðŸ˜
judging by your comments, you seem to be very determined to get people eating bugs - have you started some line of insect cuisine or something? buggy bits or filet mosquito or sirloin cicadas ...
in fiendship,
prad
Originally posted by KneverKnighti get it! the "B" is for bugs, right?
Its always good to have a Plan B. 🙂
before plan "B" becomes necessary it is interesting that plan "V" is already making excellent progress.
for instance, in an unscientific poll on the physicsforums, the veg:notveg ratio is around 1:2!
three decades ago, finding a veg was like looking for an alfalfa sprout in a haystack.
more remarkable is this poll from ARAMARK (NYSE:RMK) who supply institutional meals (http://www.aramark.com/): nearly a quarter of college students want vegan (strict vegetarian) food and the company is responding as you'll see from the news release.
in friendship,
prad
One Out of Every Four College Students Wants Vegan Meals According to ARAMARK Nationwide Survey; Campuses Across Country Offer 'Vegan' This Fall
(http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20041019005105&newsLang=en)
PHILADELPHIA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 19, 2004--According to ARAMARK's recent nationwide survey completed by over 100,000 college students, nearly a quarter said finding vegan meals on campus was important to them. Vegan dishes contain no meat, fish, poultry or other products derived from animals such as dairy, eggs or honey.
As a result, ARAMARK (NYSE:RMK) has added dozens of vegan menu items as part of the company's innovative and flexible Just4U(TM) menu program, available on nearly two dozen ARAMARK-managed college campuses this fall.
New menu items include Sweet Thai Tofu Stir-Fry, Broccoli Teriyaki, Chili Garlic Stir-Fry, Vegan Cheese Quesadillas, Vegan "Chicken" Burritos, Eggless "Egg" Salad, "Turkey" Subs, and Vegan "Cheese" Burgers. Each dish contains flavorful meat or cheese alternatives, made from soy or other vegan products.
"Our DiningStyles(TM) research demonstrated that demand for vegan is especially strong among college students, as fully 24% of students indicated that vegan dishes were important to them versus only 18% for low-carb," said Ginger Strano, RD, Director of Nutritional Program Development for ARAMARK. "With Just4U(TM) we're able to customize our menu mix to reflect how students eat on each campus and offer foods that fit into their own dining style."
Just4U(TM) - Food That Fits Your Life -- was introduced in June 2004 to select campus, business and healthcare dining locations managed by ARAMARK. Based on the company's comprehensive DiningStyles(TM) research, Just4U(TM) makes it easy for diners at any location to find the menu items they want, with easy-to-understand nutrition information and bold menu identifiers.
Low Fat, Heart Healthy, Carb Counter, Cal Smart and Vegetarian are other Just4U(TM) menu classifications. Menu items are tested for nutritional value and accuracy during development by ARAMARK chefs and registered dietitians, and food services personnel undergo in-depth training to become Just4U(TM) certified.
Vegan Just4U(TM) training, for instance, focuses on close inspection of ingredient labels, proper separation of ingredients during storage, preparation and service to protect against contact with animal-based products, and designation of utensils as "for vegan only" to give customers confidence in the meals being served.
About ARAMARK
ARAMARK Corporation is a world leader in providing award-winning food and facilities management services to health care institutions, universities and school districts, stadiums and arenas, international and domestic corporations, as well as providing uniform and career apparel.
ARAMARK was ranked number one in its industry in the 2004 FORTUNE 500 survey and was also named one of "America's Most Admired Companies" by FORTUNE magazine in 2004, consistently ranking since 1998 as one of the top three most admired companies in its industry as evaluated by peers. Headquartered in Philadelphia, ARAMARK has approximately 200,000 employees serving clients in 19 countries.
the argument is not incorrect
The argument is clearly incorrect if it means that people are not capable of eating meat, since we are capable of eating meat. Your definition of 'designed' doesn't seem to suggest this. You seem to use 'designed' in a way that means ideal performance and circumstances only. An analogy might be "is an airplane designed to fly through turbulence?" The answer is, it flies through turbulence just fine. It might not do as well as if there were no turbulence...
i don't know if you are directing this to me or not.
I think lloydk really started talking about naturalness. You mentioned a specific concept with the word natural in the name, but you weren't using it in the way I mean. So no, it's not directed at you. It's not really directed at anyone. The idea of 'naturalness' appeared and I responded to it.
i do not understand the reference to gollum's long lost son though i have seen the movie and read the book
I guess that I had some vague idea that Gollum talked like this: "Gollum is hungry." Now that I think about it, he uses the plural: We, and Us. I guess it was a bad sarcastic remark.
it is more accurate to say...
By the way, I don't necessarily agree with the statement I made. I just think it's a more reasonable statement, and more plausible.
well there is a huge surplus of vegetable food
That's true! So there is no need to eat meat right now.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I guess that I had some vague idea that Gollum talked like this: "Gollum is hungry." Now that I think about it, he uses the plural: We, and Us.
this is correct and We's keep throwing in that precioussss thing too.
and neither do We's mentionss usss 😀
By the way, I don't necessarily agree with the statement I made.
not a problem! it still sounds good, imo.
That's true! So there is no need to eat meat right now.
go to greens as lloydk recommends - i've heard it is excellent!
if you like raw foods go to julianos (locations i believe in san francisco, santa monica, las vegas) - extraordinarily flavorful! we have his book so here is a recipe from it:
Butternut Squash Soup
For soup:
3 cups butternut squash, peeled, seeded, and chopped
1 mango cubed
2 teaspoons curry
4 cups orange juice
1/2 cup dates
For garnish:
1 plantain or banana, sliced
1/2 cup chopped mint
a pinch of minced jalapeno
1 mango, seeded, peeled, and diced
In a blender, combine the butternut squash, mango, curry, orange juice, and dates and blend until creamy. Garnish with plantain or banana slices, mint, jalapeno, and mango.
Serve immediately after blending.
(adapted from The Uncook Book: New Vegetarian Food for Life by Juliano with Erika Lenkert (Harper Collins)
juliano's ideas are exceptionally potent to the tastebuds which is the intent. some of the dishes take some time to prepare (unusual for raw foods which are really the original fast food), but are generally worth it.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by AThousandYoungno no - the 'usss' was in reference to pradsss 😀
[b]and neither do We's mentionss usss
Gollum: Master hurts us, Master betrays us. We should strangle him in his sleep. No, no, too risky...unless...we let 'her' do it... yes... Yes, she could do it for us, right precious?
[/b]
btw, you note gollum was rawfoodist - though not a vegan.
in fiendship,
prad